I feel there needs to be some clarification about the use of the words “Hindu” and “Hinduism.” The fact is that true “Hinduism” is based on Vedic knowledge, which is related to our spiritual identity. Many people do accept it to mean the same thing as Sanatana-dharma, which is a more accurate Sanskrit term for the Vedic path. Such an identity is beyond any temporary names as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Hindu. After all, God never describes Himself as belonging to any such category, saying that He is only a Christian God, or a Muslim God, or a Hindu God. That is why some of the greatest spiritual masters from India have avoided identifying themselves only as Hindus. The Vedic path is eternal, and therefore beyond all such temporary designations. So am I calling the name “Hindu” a temporary designation?

We must remember that the term “hindu” is not even Sanskrit. Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for “Hinduism.”

Most scholars feel that the name “Hindu” was developed by outsiders, invaders who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River properly. According to Sir Monier Williams, the Sanskrit lexicographer, you cannot find an indigenous root for the words Hindu or India. Neither are these words found in any Buddhist or Jain texts, nor any of the official 23 languages of India. Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great who first renamed the River Sindhu as the Indu, dropping the beginning “S”, thus making it easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This became known as the Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India around 325 B.C. His Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the Indus as India, a name used especially during the British regime. Before this, the Vedic name for the area was Bharath Varsha, which many people still prefer to call it by that name.

Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as Afghanistan and Persia, they called the Sindhu River the Hindu River. Thereafter, the name “Hindu” was used to describe the inhabitants from that tract of land in the northwestern provinces of India where the Sindhu River is located, and the region itself was called “Hindustan.” Because the Sanskrit sound of “S” converts to “H” in the Parsee language, the Muslims pronounced the Sindhu as “hindu,” even though at the time the people of the area did not use the name “hindu” themselves. This word was used by the Muslim foreigners to identify the people and the religion of those who lived in that area. Thereafter, even the Indians conformed to these standards as set by those in power and used the names Hindu and Hindustan. Otherwise, the word has no meaning except for those who place value on it or now use it out of convenience.

This is corroborated and explained further by Sarjerao Ramrao Gharge-Deshmukh, where he explains, “At the juncture of the Greek invasion, the noun Hindu had not yet evolved. The natives were [known as] the Vedic people who followed the practices prescribed in the Vedas where fire worship was prominent among other forces of nature, such as Indra (rains), Varun (water), Vayu (wind), Ashva (horse), etc. As a religion, Islam was formalized around 622 AD and the Persian conquest of 642-44 AD by the Arabs as Islamic power destroyed the age-old Persian civilization in terms of philosophy, culture, type of worship, etc. Within 100 years of the Arabic conquest, the Persians were overwhelmingly converted to Islam. At this juncture, due to Persian interchangeability between ‘s’ and ‘h’, Sindu must have become Hindu and the Persians called their brothers across the river as Hindus and the abode of the Hindus as Hindusthan. Nehru in his book titled Discovery of India also states that the earliest reference to the term Hindu was found in the Tantrik literatures of the 8th century AD. Thus, relatively speaking, Hindu is the modern term for the Vedic Indians by the Persians who had lost their ancient civilization to the Arabs.” (Ramayana: A Fact or Fiction?, by Sarjerao Ramrao Gharge-Deshmukh, Pratibha Deshmukh, Pune, October, 2003, p.236)

Another view of the name “Hindu” shows the confusing nature it causes for understanding the true essence of the spiritual paths of India. As written by R. N. Suryanarayan in his bookUniversal Religion (p.1-2, published in Mysore in 1952), “The political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-25 centuries, has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true name of this Brahmanland, a vast continent-like country, and, therefore, they have contented themselves by calling it by that meaningless term ‘Hindu’. This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means ‘the black of the sky’ and ‘Saturn’. In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.”

The location wherein the word “Hindu” occurs for what some people feel the first time is in the Avesta of the Iranians in its description of the country of India and its people. As their state religion of Zoroastrianism grew, the word seemed to take on a derogatory meaning. And of course as Islam spread in India, the words “Hindu” and “Hindustan” became even more disrespected and even hated in the Persian arena, and more prominent in the Persian and Arabic literature after the 11th century.

Another view of the source of the name Hindu is based on a derogatory meaning. It is said that, “Moreover, it is correct that this name [Hindu] has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam were termed as slaves.” (Maharishi Shri Dayanand Saraswati Aur Unka Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat Rai, published in Lahore, 1898, in the Introduction)

Furthermore, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as “chore [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], andghulam [slave].” In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (Part One, p. 615) the Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described as barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black). So these are all derogatory expressions for the translation of the term hindu in the Persian label of the people of India.

So, basically, Hindu is merely a continuation of a Muslim term that became popular only within the last 1300 years. In this way, we can understand that it is not a valid Sanskrit term, nor does it have anything to do with the true Vedic culture or the Vedic spiritual path. No religion ever existed that was called “Hinduism” until the Indian people in general placed value on that name, as given by those who dominated over them, and accepted its use. Furthermore, the term has been used to convey demeaning connotations. So is it any wonder that some Indian acharyas and Vedic organizations do not care to use the term?

The real confusion started when the name “Hinduism” was used to indicate the religion of the Indian people. The words “Hindu” and “Hinduism” were used frequently by the British with the effect of focusing on the religious differences between the Muslims and the people who became known as “Hindus”. This was done with the rather successful intention of creating friction among the people of India. This was in accord with the British policy of divide and rule to make it easier for their continued dominion over the country.

However, we should mention that others who try to justify the word “Hindu” present the idea that rishis of old, several thousand years ago, also called central India Hindustan, and the people who lived there Hindus. The following verse, said to be from the Vishnu Purana, Padma Purana and the Bruhaspati Samhita, is provided as proof, yet I am still waiting to learn the exact location where we can find this verse:

Aaasindo Sindhu Paryantham Yasyabharatha Bhoomikah

Mathrubhuh Pithrubhoochaiva sah Vai Hindurithismrithaah

Another verse reads as: Sapta sindhu muthal Sindhu maha samudhram vareyulla Bharatha bhoomi aarkkellamaano Mathru bhoomiyum Pithru bhoomiyumayittullathu, avaraanu hindukkalaayi ariyappedunnathu. Both of these verses more or less indicate that whoever considers the land of Bharatha Bhoomi between Sapta Sindu and the Indian Ocean as his or her motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu. However, here we also have the real and ancient name of India mentioned, which is Bharata Bhoomi. “Bhoomi” (or Bhumi) means Mother Earth, but Bharata is the land of Bharata or Bharata-varsha, which is the land of India. In numerous Vedic references in the Puranas, Mahabharata and other Vedic texts, the area of India is referred to as Bharata-varsha or the land of Bharata and not as Hindustan. The name Bharata-varsha certainly helps capture the roots and glorious past of the country and its people.

Another couple of references that are used, though the exact location of which I am not sure, includes the following:

Himalayam Samaarafya Yaavat Hindu Sarovaram

Tham Devanirmmitham desham Hindustanam Prachakshathe

Himalyam muthal Indian maha samudhram vareyulla

devanirmmithamaya deshaththe Hindustanam ennu parayunnu

These again indicate that the region between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean is called Hindustan. Thus, the conclusion of this is that all Indians are Hindus regardless of their caste and religion. Of course, not everyone is going to agree with that.

Others say that in the Rig Veda, Bharata is referred to as the country of “Sapta Sindhu”, i.e. the country of seven great rivers. This is, of course, acceptable. However, exactly which book and chapter this verse comes from needs to be clarified. Nonetheless, some say that the word “Sindhu” refers to rivers and sea, and not merely to the specific river called “Sindhu”. Furthermore, it is said that in Vedic Sanskrit, according to ancient dictionaries, “sa” was pronounced as “ha”. Thus “Sapta Sindhu” was pronounced as “Hapta Hindu”. So this is how the word “Hindu” is supposed to have come into being. It is also said that the ancient Persians referred to Bharat as “Hapta Hind”, as recorded in their ancient classic “Bem Riyadh”. So this is another reason why some scholars came to believe that the word “Hindu” had its origin in Persia.

Another theory is that the name “Hindu” does not even come from the name Sindhu. Mr. A. Krishna Kumar of Hyderabad, India explains. “This [Sindhu/Hindu] view is untenable since Indians at that time enviably ranked highest in the world in terms of civilization and wealth would not have been without a name. They were not the unknown aborigines waiting to be discovered, identified and Christened by foreigners.” He cites an argument from the book Self-Government in India by N. B. Pavgee, published in 1912. The author tells of an old Swami and Sanskrit scholar Mangal Nathji, who found an ancient Purana known as Brihannaradi in the Sham village, Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It contained this verse:

himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram

hindusthanamiti qyatam hi antaraksharayogatah

Again the exact location of this verse in the Purana is missing, but Kumar translates it as: “The country lying between the Himalayan mountains and Bindu Sarovara (Cape Comorin sea) is known as Hindusthan by combination of the first letter ‘hi’ of ‘Himalaya’ and the last compound letter ‘ndu’ of the word ‘Bindu.’”

This, of course, is supposed to have given rise to the name “Hindu”, indicating an indigenous origin. The conclusion of which is that people living in this area are thus known as “Hindus”.

So again, in any way these theories may present their information, and in any way you look at it, the name “Hindu” started simply as a bodily and regional designation. The name “Hindu” refers to a location and its people and originally had nothing to do with the philosophies, religion or culture of the people, which could certainly change from one thing to another. It is like saying that all people from India are Indians. Sure, that is acceptable as a name referring to a location, but what about their religion, faith and philosophy? These are known by numerous names according to the various outlooks and beliefs. Thus, they are not all Hindus, as many people who do not follow the Vedic system already object to calling themselves by that name. So “Hindu” is not the most appropriate name of a spiritual path, but the Sanskrit term of Sanatana-dharma is much more accurate. The culture of the ancient Indians and their early history is Vedic culture or Vedic dharma. So it is more appropriate to use a name that is based on that culture for those who follow it, rather than a name that merely addresses the location of a people.

It seems that only with the Vedic kings of the Vijayanagara empire in 1352 was the word “Hindu” used with pride by Bukkal who described himself as “Hinduraya suratrana”. Whereas the main Sanskrit texts, and even the rituals that have been performed in the temples from millennia ago, used the word “Bharata” in reference to the area of present-day India. Thus, it is traditionally and technically more accurate to refer to the land of India as “Bharata” or “Bharat varsha”.

Unfortunately, the word “Hindu” has gradually been adopted by most everyone, even the Indians, and is presently applied in a very general way, so much so, in fact, that now “Hinduism” is often used to describe anything from religious activities to even Indian social or nationalistic events. Some of these so-called “Hindu” events are not endorsed in the Vedic literature, and, therefore, must be considered non-Vedic. Thus, not just anyone can call themselves a “Hindu” and still be considered a follower of the Vedic path. Nor can any activity casually be dubbed as a part of Hinduism and thoughtlessly be considered a part of the true Vedic culture.

Therefore, the Vedic spiritual path is more precisely called Sanatana-dharma, which means the eternal, unchanging occupation of the soul in its relation to the Supreme Being. Just as thedharma of sugar is to be sweet, this does not change. And if it is not sweet, then it is not sugar. Or the dharma of fire is to give warmth and light. If it does not do that, then it is not fire. In the same way, there is a particular dharma or nature of the soul, which is sanatana, or eternal. It does not change. So there is the state of dharma and the path of dharma. Following the principles ofSanatana-dharma can bring us to the pure state of regaining our forgotten spiritual identity and relationship with God. This is the goal of Vedic knowledge and its system of self-realization. Thus, the knowledge of the Vedas andall Vedic literature, such as Lord Krishna’s message in Bhagavad-gita, as well as the teachings of the Upanishads and Puranas, are not limited to only “Hindus” who are restricted to a certain region of the planet or family of birth. Such knowledge is actually meant for the whole world. As everyone is a spiritual being and has the same spiritual essence as described according to the principles of Sanatana-dharma, then everyone should be given the right and privilege to understand this knowledge. It cannot be held for an exclusive group or region of people.

Sanatana-dharma is also the fully developed spiritual philosophy that fills whatever gaps may be left by the teachings of other less philosophically developed religions. Direct knowledge of the soul is a “universal spiritual truth” which can be applied by all people, in any part of the world, in any time in history, and in any religion. It is eternal. Therefore, being an eternal spiritual truth, it is beyond all time and worldly designations. Knowledge of the soul is the essence of Vedic wisdom and is more than what the name “Hindu” implies, especially after understanding from where the name comes.

Even if the time arrives in this deteriorating age of Kali-yuga after many millennia when Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and even Hinduism (as we call it today) may disappear from the face of the earth, there will still be the Vedic teachings that remain as a spiritual and universal truth, even if such truths may be forgotten and must be re-established again in this world by Lord Krishna Himself. I doubt then that He will use the name “Hindu.” He certainly said nothing of the sort when He last spoke Bhagavad-gita.

Thus, although I do not feel that “Hindu” is a proper term to represent the Vedic Aryan culture or spiritual path, I do use the word from time to time to mean the same thing since it is already so much a part of everyone’s vocabulary. Otherwise, since I follow the Vedic path of Sanatana-dharma, I call myself a Sanatana-dharmist. That reduces the need to use the label of “Hindu” and also helps focus on the universal nature of the Vedic path. Therefore, I propose that all those who consider themselves to be Hindus begin to use this term Sanatana-dharmist, which not only refers to the correct Sanskrit terminology, but also more accurately depicts the true character and spiritual intention of the Vedic path. Others have also used the terms Sanatanis or evenDharmists, both of which are closer to the real meaning within Vedic culture.

However, for political and legal purposes it may be convenient to continue using the name Hindu for the time being. Until the terms Sanatana-dharma or Vedic dharma become more recognized by international law and society in general, “Hindu” may remain the term behind which to rally for Vedic culture. But over the long term, it is a name that is bound to change in meaning to the varying views of it due to its lack of a real linguistic foundation. Being based merely on the values people place in it, its meaning and purpose will vary from person to person, culture to culture, and certainly from generation to generation. We can see how this took place with the British in India. So there will be the perpetuation of the problems with the name and why some people and groups will not want to accept it.

Yet by the continued and increased use of the terms Vedic dharma or Sanatana-dharma, at least by those who are more aware of the definitive Sanskrit basis of these terms, they will gain recognition as being the more correct terminology. It merely takes some time to make the proper adjustments.

This is the way to help cure the misinterpretation or misunderstandings that may come from using the name “Hindu,” and also end the reasons why some groups do not care to identify themselves under that name. After all, most Vedic groups, regardless of their orientation and the specific path they follow, can certainly unite behind the term Vedic dharma.

APPENDIX: Srila Prabhupada, founder of the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, has said different things at different times or to different people regarding the use of the name “Hindu”. Many times members of Iskcon seem to think that the name Hindu should be avoided at all costs. And on numerous occasions Srila Prabhupada did say Iskcon members are not necessarily Hindus.

However, he succinctly explains to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970 that there is a connection between Hinduism and Krishna Consciousness: “Regarding your questions: Hindu means the culture of the Indians. India happens to be situated on the other side of the Indus River which is now in Pakistan which is spelled Indus–in Sanskrit it is called Sindhu. The sindhu was misspelled by the Europeans as Indus, and from Indus the word ‘Indian’ has come. Similarly the Arabians used to pronounce sindhus as Hindus. This [thus] Hindus is spoken as Hindus. It is neither a Sanskrit word nor is it found in the Vedic literatures. But the culture of the Indians or the Hindus is Vedic and beginning with the four varnas and fourashramas. So these varnas and four ashramas are meant for really civilized human race. Therefore the conclusion is actually when a human being is civilized in the true sense of the term he follows the system of varna and ashrama and then he can be called a ‘Hindu’. Our Krishna Consciousness Movement is preaching these four varnas and four ashramas, so naturally it has got some relationship with the Hindus. So Hindus can be understood from the cultural point of view, not religious point of view. Culture is never religion. Religion is a faith, and culture is educational or advancement of knowledge.”

He further says in a letter from Los Angeles, July 16th, 1970, wherein he answers questions for a Nevatiaji: “9. The Americans are very intelligent and qualified boys and girls so they understand the principles as genuine and thus they accept them. They understand that Krishna Consciousness Movement is neither Indian nor Hindu, but it is a cultural movement for the whole human society although of course because it is coming from India it has [an] Indian and Hindu touch.”

In this way, Srila Prabhupada differentiated Krishna Consciousness as a universal, cultural and spiritual movement that could stand on its own, apart from any particular religious and cultural distinction. Yet he still relates how there is certainly an Indian and Hindu relationship with what is being presented within his movement. And this does not have to be nor should it be completely ignored or avoided. We can certainly work together for the preservation and promotion of Vedic culture without difficulty with those who may prefer to call themselves Hindu, knowing our connection with the Vedic traditions.

To start with, the Manu-samhita clearly and logically recommends that, “Meatcan never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury tosentient beings is detrimental to the attainment of heavenly bliss; let himtherefore shun the use of meat. Having well considered the disgusting origin offlesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let himentirely abstain from eating flesh.” (Manu-samhita 5.48-49)

However, it is not simply the person who eats the meat that becomes implicatedby eating the dead animal, but also those who assist in the process. “He whopermits the slaughter of an animal, he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he whobuys or sells meat, he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it,must all be considered as the slayers of the animal. There is no greater sinnerthan that man who though not worshiping the gods or the ancestors, seeks toincrease the bulk of his own flesh by the flesh of other beings.” (Manu-samhita5.51-52)

As we get further into the Manu-samhita, there are warnings that becomeincreasingly more serious. For example, “If he has a strong desire (for meat)he may make an animal of clarified butter or one of flour (and eat that); butlet him never seek to destroy an animal without a (lawful) reason. As manyhairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a(lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births.” (Manu-samhita5.37-38)

In this way, the only time to carry out the need to kill animals forconsumption is when there is an emergency such as when there simply is nothingelse to eat. Otherwise, when there are plenty of grains, vegetables, fruits,etc., to eat, it is only mankind’s lust and selfish desires that motivate oneto kill other beings to satisfy one’s tongue by tasting their blood and flesh,or to fatten one’s wallet by making money from participating in thedistribution or the cooking of meat. Such violent actions create oppositereactions. For this reason the warnings are given, “He who injures harmlesscreatures from a wish to give himself pleasure, never finds happiness in thislife or the next.” (Manu-samhita 5.45)

Nonetheless, there are also benefits that are mentioned that a person can attainsimply by not eating the bodies of other creatures: “By subsisting on purefruits and roots, and by eating food fit for ascetics in the forest, one doesnot gain so great a reward as by entirely avoiding the use of flesh. Me he [mamsah] will devour in the next world, whose flesh I eat in this life; the wisedeclare this to be the real meaning of the word ‘flesh’ [mam sah].”(Manu-samhita 5.54-55)

“He who does not seek to cause the sufferings of bonds and death to livingcreatures, (but) desires the good of all (beings), obtains endless bliss. Hewho does not injure any (creature) attains without an effort what he thinks of,what he undertakes, and what he fixes his mind on.” (Manu-samhita 5.46-47)

Also, “By not killing any living being, one becomes fit for salvation.”(Manu-samhita 6.60)

The earlier texts, such as the Rig-veda (10.87.16), also proclaim the need togive up the eating of slaughtered animals. “One who partakes of human flesh,the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk byslaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, thenyou should not hesitate to cut off his head.”

“Those who are ignorant of real dharma and, though wicked and haughty, accountthemselves virtuous, kill animals without any feeling of remorse or fear ofpunishment. Further, in their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten bythe same creatures they have killed in this world.” (Bhagavata Purana 11.5.14)

The following verses are from the Tirukural:

Howcan he practice true compassion who eats the flesh of an animal to fatten hisown flesh?
Riches cannot be found in the hands of the thriftless, nor can compassion befound in the hearts of those who eat meat.

He who feasts on a creature’s flesh is like he who wields a weapon. Goodness isnever one with the minds of these two.

If you ask, “What is kindness and what is unkindness?”
It is not-killing and killing. Thus, eating flesh is never virtuous. Life is perpetuatedby not eating meat.The jaws of Hell close on those who do. If the world did notpurchase and consume meat, no one would slaughter and offer meat for sale. Whena man realizes that meat is the butchered flesh of another creature, he willabstain from eating it.

Insightful souls who have abandoned the passion to hurt others will not feed onflesh that life has abandoned. Greater than a thousand ghee offerings consumedin sacrificial fires is to not sacrifice and consume any living creature. Alllife will press palms together in prayerful adoration of those who refuse toslaughter or savor meat.

From these verses there should be no doubt that the Vedic shastra recommendsthat such selfish meat-eating must be given up if one has any concern for otherliving beings, or one’s own future existence, or for attaining any spiritualmerit.

There are also references in the Mahabharata that forewarn the activity ofeating flesh. This is in the Anushasana Parva section where there is aconversation between Yudhisthira and Grandfather Bhishma about the merits ofabstaining from meat eating and the demerits and consequences for doing so. Itis quite revealing. One quote is: “He who desires to augment his own flesh byeating the flesh of other creatures, lives in misery in whatever species he maytake his [next] birth.” (Mahabharata, Anu.115.47)

“The purchaser of flesh performs violence by his wealth; he who eats flesh doesso by enjoying its taste; the killer does violence by actually tying andkilling the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who brings fleshor sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases,sells, or cooks flesh and eats it–all these are to be considered meat-eaters.”(Mahabharata, Anu.115.40) All of these people will also incur the same karmic reactionsfor their participation in killing, distributing or eating the flesh ofanimals, as explained next.

“The sins generated by violence curtail the life of the perpetrator. Therefore,even those who are anxious for their own welfare should abstain frommeat-eating.” (Mahabharata, Anu.115.33)

A more thorough and educational rendering of the teachings of Bhishma in theMahabharata is as follows:

Bhishma started, “Numberless discourses took place between the Rishis on thissubject, O scion of Kuru’s race. Listen, O Yudhisthira, what their opinion was.(115.7)

“The highly wise seven celestial Rishis, the Valakshillyas, and those Rishiswho drink the rays of the sun, all speak highly of abstention from meat. Theself-created Manu has said that the man who does not eat meat, or who does notkill living creatures, or who does not cause them to be killed, is a friend ofall creatures. Such a man is incapable of being oppressed by any creature. Heenjoys the confidence of all living beings. He always enjoys the praise of thepious. The virtuous Narada has said that that man who wishes to multiply hisown flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures meets with disaster.(115.9-12)

“That man, who having eaten meat, gives it up afterwards wins merit by such adeed that is so great that a study of all the Vedas or a performance, OBharata, of all the sacrifices [Vedic rituals], cannot give its like. (115.16)

“That learned person who gives to all living creatures the gift of completeassurance is forsooth regarded as the giver of lifebreaths in this world.(115.18)

“Men gifted with intelligence and purified souls should always treat others asthey themselves wish to be treated. It is seen that even those men who areendued with learning and who seek to acquire the greatest good in the shape ofliberation, are not free of the fear of death. (115.20)

“What necessity be said of those innocent and healthy creatures gifted withlove of life, when they are sought to be killed by sinful wretches living byslaughter? Therefore, O King, know that the discarding of meat is the highestrefuge of religion, of the celestial region, and of happiness. Abstention ofinjury [to others] is the highest religion. It is, again, the highest penance.It is also the highest truth from which all duty emanates. (115.21-23)

“Flesh cannot be had from grass or wood or stone. Unless a living creature iskilled it cannot be procured. Hence is the fault of eating flesh. Thecelestials who live upon Svaha, Svadha, and nectar, are given to truth andsincerity. Those persons, however, who are for satisfying the sensation oftaste, should be known as Rakshasas [flesh-eating demons] pervaded by thequality of Darkness. (115.24-25)

“If there were nobody who ate flesh, then there would be nobody to slay livingcreatures. The man who slays living creatures kills them for the sake of theperson who eats flesh. If flesh were not considered as food, there would thenbe no destruction of living creatures. It is for the sake of the eater that thedestruction of living entities is carried on in the world. Since, O you ofgreat splendor, the period of life is shortened by persons who kill livingcreatures or cause them to be killed, it is clear that the person who seeks hisown good should give up meat altogether. Those dreadful persons who are engagedin the destruction of living beings never find protectors when they are inneed. Such persons should always be molested and punished even as beast ofprey. (115.29-32)

“That man who seeks to multiply his own flesh by (eating) the flesh of othershas to live in this world in great anxiety, and after death has to take birthin indifferent races and families. High Rishis given to the observance of vowsand self-control have said that abstention from meat is worthy of praise,productive of fame and Heaven, and a great satisfaction itself. This I heardformerly, O son of Kunti, from Markandeya when that Rishi discoursed on thesins of eating flesh. (115.34-36)

“He who purchases flesh, kills living creatures through his money. He who eatsflesh, kills living beings through his eating. He who binds or seizes andactually kills living creatures is the slaughterer. These are the three sortsof slaughter through each of these acts. He who does not himself eat flesh butapproves of an act of slaughter, becomes stained with the sin of slaughter.(115.38-39)

“That wretched man who kills living creatures for the sake of those who wouldeat them commits great sin. The eater’s sin is not as great. That wretched manwho, following the path of religious rites and sacrifices as laid down in theVedas, would kill a living creature from a desire to eats its flesh, willcertainly go to hell. That man who having eaten flesh abstains from itafterwards acquires great merit on account of such abstention from sin. He whoarranges for obtaining flesh, he who approves of those arrangements, he whokills, he who buys or sells, he who cooks, and he who eats it, [acquire the sinof those who] are all considered as eaters of flesh. [Therefore] that man whowishes to avoid disaster should abstain from the meat of every living creature.(115.44-48)

“Listen to me, O king of kings, as I tell you this, O sinless one, there isabsolute happiness in abstaining from meat, O king. He who practices severeausterities for a century, and he who abstains from meat, are both equallymeritorious. This is my opinion. (115.52-53)

“Yudhisthira said: Alas, those cruel men who, not caring for various othersorts of food, want only flesh, are really like great Rakshasas [meat-eatingdemons]. (116.1)

“Bhishma said: That man who wishes to increase his own flesh by the meat ofanother living creature is such that there is none meaner and more cruel thanhe. In this world there is nothing that is dearer to a creature than his life.Hence, one should show mercy to the lives of others as he does to his own life.Forsooth, O son, flesh has its origin in the vital seed. There is great sinattached to its eating, as, indeed, there is merit in abstaining from it.(116.11-13)

“There is nothing, O delighter of the Kurus, that is equal in point of merit,either in this world or in the next, to the practice of mercy to all livingcreatures. (116.19)

“Hence a person of purified soul should be merciful to all living creatures.That man, O king, who abstains from every kind of meat from his birth forsooth,acquires a large space in the celestial region. They who eat the flesh ofanimals who are desirous of life, are themselves [later] eaten by the animalsthey eat. This is my opinion. Since he has eaten me, I shall eat him in return.This, O Bharata, forms the character as Mamsah [meaning flesh] of Mamsah [mehe, or “me he” will eat for having eaten him]. The destroyer is always slain.After him the eater meets with the same fate. (116.32-35)

“He who acts with hostility towards another becomes victim of similar deedsdone by that other. Whatever acts one does in whatever bodies, he has to sufferthe consequences thereof in those bodies. (116.36-37)

“Abstention from cruelty is the highest Religion. Abstention from cruelty isthe greatest self-restraint. Abstention from cruelty is the highest gift.Abstention from cruelty is the highest penance. Abstention from cruelty is thehighest sacrifice. Abstention from cruelty is the highest power. Abstentionfrom cruelty is the greatest friend. Abstention from cruelty is the greatesthappiness. (116.38-39)

“Gifts made in all sacrifices [rituals], ablutions performed in all sacredwater, and the merit which one acquires from making all kinds of giftsmentioned in the scriptures, all these do not equal in merit abstention fromcruelty.” (116.40)

THE QUESTION OF WHETHER LORD RAMA ATE MEAT IN THE RAMAYANA

Sometimes the idea comes up that the Ramayana indicates that Lord Rama ate meat, especially while He was in exile in the woods. However, there is no verse in Valmiki’s Ramayana that establishes that Lord Rama, Lakshmana or Sita ate meat while in or even out of exile. In fact, it seems to show that He very much disliked the notion of eating meat. The evidence for this is as follows:

The literal translation of this verse is: “Sri Rama does not take meat or honey. He partakes everyday of wild fruits and boiled (wild) rice fully sanctioned (for an ascetic) in the evening.”

Faulty English translations have put it as something like this: Hanuman to Sita, “When you were away, Sri Rama did not even take deer meat.” This incorrectly implies that Rama normally may have ate meat but did not do so while Sita was away from Him.

Now in this verse, the Sanskrit word bhunkte is a verb that means strong desire for eating. It comes from the Sanskrit bhaksha, which means voracious eating. When you say Na bhunkte, as we see in the line that says “Na mamsam Raghava bhunkte”, it gives a complete negative connotation, meaning that Lord Rama abhorred meat-eating. On the other hand, if the words were “Na mamsam Raghavo khadate”, it could then mean that Raghava may have engaged in meat eating before, but had stopped it at this point. However, this is not what is said, but is where some English translations present a similar confusion, or are simply unclear about this issue. Nonetheless, by analyzing the correct view of the proper translation, it indicates clearly that the Valmiki Ramayana shows how Lord Rama not only did not eat meat, but greatly disliked it

Advertisements

]]>https://dharmaawakening.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/vedic-references-against-meat-eating-and-animal-slaughter/feed/0dharmaawakeningDeception by Translators of the Quran:-https://dharmaawakening.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/deception-by-translators-of-the-quran/
https://dharmaawakening.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/deception-by-translators-of-the-quran/#respondSun, 25 Nov 2012 13:09:16 +0000http://dharmaawakening.wordpress.com/?p=300Deception by Translators of the Quran:-

Those who master the Arabic language, and who have read the Quran in the original Arabic, are usually stunned when they read it translated into a foreign language. They can’t help but notice that there are numerous discrepancies between the original Arabic and the translation.

Careful examinations would lead one to discern that these are not merely routine human errors. Analytical thinking uncovers the reality that the discrepancies are part of a deliberate, intentional plot to deceive. The translator’s objective is to distract the foreign readers and prospective converts from the CRUELTIES andPREJUDICES of the Quran.

Certain words, concepts and phrases in the original Arabic Quran sound strange to foreign readers.Arabic speaking Muslims have become accustomed to them. However, when one attempts accurate literal translation of these, the result is rather shocking.

One will have in hand a book that contains strange expressions and vulgar language. What was supposed to be a“holy” book would become X-rated, unsuitable for family-oriented use and children reading material.

Muhammadan Muslim translators facing this dilemma, found themselves in a position demanding meticulous cleverness. It would take a lot of patching and polishing to make their translations of the Quranread as a “holy” book should. Their aim is to present the outside world a version of the Quran that would attract people to Islam rather than repel them from it.

The intentional MISTRANSLATION of the Quran is a massive subject that needs to be explored and dealt with in a separate thesis. For the purpose of this article we will give just a few examples before zeroing in on the topic of this article.

Here are some of the interesting things Islam and Sharia Law says about deception/scheming. Many people might not be aware of these.

The Iraqi Information minister quoted Sura 3:54, saying that

“Allah was the best of deceivers”. What actually is this word?

3:54“And (then unbelievers) plotted and planned [makaroo] and Allah too planned[makara]and the best [khayr] of planners [makireen] is Allah“

#393The Arabic Makara has both a bad and a good meaning, that of making an intricate plan to carry out some secret purpose. The enemies of Allah are constantly doing that. But Allah-in whose hands is all good-has His plans also, against which the evil ones will have no chance whatever.

The Arabic word makara means to DECEIVE,PLAN, PLOT, SCHEME.

*** The Quran depicts Allah as a SLY, DECEIVING & CUNNING SCHEMER who plans and plots against his own CREATION that he had already PREDESTINED to end up either inParadise or in Hell.

Such human attributes cannot possibly fit any supreme being, if Allah is the same as theGod of Israel.

In fact such attributes are pure BLASPHEMY ***

The Arabic Bible inGenesis 3:1uses the same word for Satan.

However, the Vand Dyck and Jerusalem Bibles use the root wordhayala, which means toDECEIVE or to LIE.

This word “schemer” (makir)is a very strong word which Wehr and Abdel-Nour define as “sly, cunning, wily, deceiver”.

The Arabic-Arabic unjid defines it with“khuda`a”which means exactly the same thing

(Bill Campbell in his book The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science p.217-218).

Another reference to the DECEIT of Allah:

7:99Did they then fell secure against the plan [makr]of Allah? But no one can feel secure from theplan [makr] of Allah except those (doomed) to ruin!

The phrase of Allah“being the best deceiver”. “khayr-ol- makireen” is also used of Allah inSuras 8:30; 10:21.

8: 30Remember how the unbelievers plotted [yamkuroo] against thee to keep thee in bonds or slay thee or get thee out (of thy home). They plot and plan[yamkuroona] and Allah too plans[yamkuroo]but the best of planners [ khayr- ol-makireen]is Allah.

10:21When We make mankind taste of some mercy after adversity hath touched them Behold! they take to plotting [makaroo]against our Signs! Say: “Swifter to plan [asra’oo makiran]is Allah!” Verily Our messengers record all the plots that ye make [tamkuroona] !

Allah is the most DECEITFUL in Sura 3:54 and in Sura 30:8

Insura 10:21 Allah is referred to be the fastest in DECEIT/PLOTTING/ SCHEMING.

The root with its nine forms is used in the Quran 43 times.

English translations of the Quran try to conceal the true meaning of “deceiver”

*** Yusuf Ali, in his version of the Quran, says that Makara can be “good or

bad”, positive or negative, (note 393), but all the Arabic dictionaries do not show the ‘good’side ***

Arberry Sura 3:between 45 and 50” And they devised, and God[Allah] devised, and God [Allah] is the best[khayr] of devisers“

Malik 3:54 “The (unbelievers among the children of Israel) plotted (against Isa) and Allah also devised a plan (to raise him up), and Allah is the best [khayr] in planning.”

10:21 “When we bestow mercy upon the people, after adversity had afflicted them, they immediatelyscheme against our revelations! Say, “GOD’s [Allah’s] scheming is far more effective. For our messengers are recording everything you scheme.“(http://www.submission.org/suras/sura10.html)

Pickthall 3:54 “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them); and Allah is the best [khayr] of schemers.“

Maulawi Sher Ali, an Ahmaddiyya3:54 “And they planned, and Allah also planned; and Allah is the Best of planners.”

In Farsi, the word, “Makr” and “Makar” is from the Arabic, and it is invariably negative.

Interpretation of Sura 3:54-

The person who is a Makir(Same form as the word Kafir), speaking of

the attribute of a person, is one who wouldoutwit someone else to cause them harm.

It speaks of one who would reveal the opposite of what he plans to do. The reality is that he is scheming evil for that person. Hence there is the sense of planning and scheming but mostly it means to trick, outwitand deceive for the purpose of overpowering and conquering the other.

A Makir is one who devises a secret scheme against someone else. Synonyms would be cheating, defrauding, double-crossing, deceiving, tricking, in all cases Makara has the sense ofdefeating the one you have tricked.

Although Quranic verses are rarely understood in the context of verses that surround them, the best explanation of this verse is that some Jewswere trying to deceive Jesus into believing that they have accepted his message while in reality were plotting to have him excuted.

Unfortunately for them, Allah knew of their scheme because they cannot outwit Allah, and he in turnschemed to deceive them by having a Jesus look-alike get executed instead.

So the literal translation that best represents the intention of the verse is

Sura 3:54 “… and (they) Deceived and Allah Deceived and Allah is the deceivest of deceivers “

In Arabic: “Wa makaru wa makara Allah wa Allah khayru^l Makireen.

The context of the story is very important since Sura 3 is regarded to be Muhammad’s understanding ofChristian beliefs.

Al Tabari says here, that the deceit of Allah applies to the time when the Jewswanted to kill Isa the son of Miriam [Mary]. In order not to have Jesus killed, someone else had the face of Isa put on him so he was killed instead of Isa the son of Miriam [Mary]. This is how Allahdeceived the Jews.

*** If Jesus did not DIE on the CROSS,then obviuosly there could have been noRESURRECTION.

Without Death & Resurrection,there in no purpose for Christianity. Hence with one single sentence, the whole of Christianity is OBLITERATED.

Since according to the Quran, its verses were‘revealed’by the angel Gabriel, the same who predicted the miraculous birth of Jesus as the REDEEMER of humanity, then AllahDECEIVED the ChristiansTWICE:

Once for the reason of Jesus’s birth and then for his non death.

From all of the above, the true nature of Allah is revealed ***

The Hadiths-

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 3.857Narrated byUm Kulthum bint Uqba

That she heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.”

*** Telling ‘flattering’ lies to make peace is acceptable ***

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 3.687Narrated byJabir bin Abdullah

Allah’s Apostle said, “Who would kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf as he has harmed Allah and His Apostle ?”Muhammad bin Maslama (got up and) said, “I will kill him.” So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka’b and said, “I want a loan of one or two Wasqs of food grains.” Ka’b said, “Mortgage your women to me.” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “How can we mortgage our women, and you are the most handsome among the Arabs?” He said, “Then mortgage your sons to me.” Muhammad said, “How can we mortgage our sons, as the people will abuse them for being mortgaged for one or two Wasqs of food grains? It is shameful for us. But we will mortgage our arms to you.” So, Muhammad bin Maslama promised him that he would come to him next time. They (Muhammad bin Maslama and his companions) came to him as promised and murdered him. Then they went to the Prophet and told him about it.

*** Maslama needed permission from Muhammad to use DECEPTION and SUBTERFUGE in order to murder al Ashraf.

Muhammad sanctioned it without hesitation ***

Sunan of Abu-DawoodHadith 2631Narrated byKa’b ibn Malik

When the Prophet (peace be upon him) intended to go on an expedition, he always pretended to be going somewhere else, and he would say: War is deception.

Allah Deceives Even Muslims-

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 8.577Narrated byAbu Huraira

Some people said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?” He said, “Do you crowd and squeeze each other on looking at the sun when it is not hidden by clouds?” They replied, “No, Allah’s Apostle.” He said, “Do you crowd and squeeze each other on looking at the moon when it is full and not hidden by clouds?” They replied, -No, O Allah’s Apostle!” He said, “So you will see Him (your Lord) on the Day of Resurrection. Similarly Allah will gather all the people and say, ‘Whoever used to worship anything should follow that thing.’ So, he who used to worship the sun, will follow it, and he who used to worship the moon will follow it, and he who used to worship false deities will follow them; and then only this nation (i.e., Muslims) will remain, including their hypocrites.

Allah will come to them in a shape other than they know and will say, ‘I am your Lord.’ They will say, ‘We seek refuge with Allah from you. This is our place; (we will not follow you) till our Lord comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him.’

Then Allah will come to them in a shape they know and will say, ‘I am your Lord.’ They will say, ‘(No doubt) You are our Lord,’ and they will follow Him. …”

( Also in Bukhari 9.532 & Muslim 1.349)

*** A Muhammadan could point out that the word “deceive” is not present in the quote above; Allah did not speak any lying words, and this occurs in Heaven, not on earth.

However, it is not required that the word “deceives” be used to deceive people, as whenAllah impersonated one who is not Allah since those who believed Allah’s words when Allahchose to be in this false shape, would end up in Hell.

If this is not deception, then what is?

We can all agree that this hadith teaches that at a future time Allah will deliberately misrepresent himself to Muslims in a

“shape other than they know” ***

What is Allah’s shape?I have not (yet) heard a Muslim say, but here is what Bukhari vol.9:532 tells us.

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 9.532BNarrated byAbu Said Al Khudri

We said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?”

He said, “Do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon when the sky is clear?”

We said, “No.”

He said, “So you will have no difficulty in seeing your Lord on that Day as you have no difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon (in a clear sky).”

The Prophet then said, “Somebody will then announce, ‘Let every nation follow what they used to worship.’ So the companions of the cross will go with their cross, and the idolators (will go) with their idols, and the companions of every god (false deities) (will go) with their god, till there remain those who used to worship Allah, both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, and some of the people of the Scripture. Then Hell will be presented to them as if it were a mirage.

Then it will be said to the Jews, ‘What did you use to worship?’

They will reply, ‘We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.’

It will be said to them, ‘You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What do you want (now)?’ They will reply, ‘We want You to provide us with water.’ Then it will be said to them ‘Drink,’ and they will fall down in Hell (instead).

*** Muhammad, his Quran and the Hadiths are unreserved PATHOLOGICAL LIARSbecause no follower of Muhammad, Past, Present or in the Future can point out a SINGLEverse in the Hebrew Bible wherein the first MONOTHEISTS in the world, the Israelites or theJews, could have believed or declared that God has a son called EZRA.

It was afterall according to the Gospels, that Jesus was condemned to DEATH because he allegedly declared himself the SON of GOD ***

Then it will be said to the Christians, ‘What did you use to worship?’

They will reply, ‘We used to worship Messiah, the son of Allah.’ It will be said, ‘You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What: do you want (now)?’ They will say, ‘We want You to provide us with water.’ It will be said to them, ‘Drink,’ and they will fall down in Hell (instead). When there remain only those who used to worship Allah (Alone), both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, it will be said to them, ‘What keeps you here when all the people have gone?’ They will say, ‘We parted with them (in the world) when we were in greater need of them than we are today, we heard the call of one proclaiming, ‘Let every nation follow what they used to worship,’ and now we are waiting for our Lord.’

Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, ‘I am your Lord,’ and they will say, ‘You are not our Lord.’ And none will speak to Him then but the Prophets, and then it will be said to them, ‘Do you know any sign by which you can recognize Him?’

They will say. ‘The Shin,’and so Allah will then uncover His Shin whereupon every believer will prostrate before Him and there will remain those who used to prostrate before Him just for showing off and for gaining good reputation. These people will try to prostrate but their backs will be rigid like one piece of a wood (and they will not be able to prostrate). Then the bridge will be laid across Hell.” We, the companions of the Prophet said, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is the bridge?”

*** Hence, despite what Muhammadan Muslims might say today, Bukhari says that Allahwill have a true PHYSICAL form and Allah himself will also appear to Muslims in a false physical form, as a sort of temptation to them.

In contrast

James 1:13 “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.”

The Quran’s Allah has been given human, mortal and fallible attributes that are not worthy of any Almighty DIVINITY ***

Advertisements

]]>https://dharmaawakening.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/deception-by-translators-of-the-quran/feed/0dharmaawakeningList of Islamic Terror Attacks from the first part of 2012https://dharmaawakening.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/list-of-islamic-terror-attacks-from-the-first-part-of-2012/
https://dharmaawakening.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/list-of-islamic-terror-attacks-from-the-first-part-of-2012/#respondThu, 22 Nov 2012 11:13:32 +0000http://dharmaawakening.wordpress.com/?p=298

The god of the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims produced one man and one woman. They are known as Adam and Eve [Hauwa]. Their children were related to each other as brothers and sisters. They married to produce the next generation. Such marriages can be termed as INCEST.

If u google INCEST , this is what u get :

in·cest/ˈinsest/

Noun:

Sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.

The crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

Therefore the giver/provider/narrator of Taurat or Injeel/Bible or Quran cannot be GOD. Since he/she allowed incest in the 2nd generation and forbid it for the later generations. These books are man-made since , “To err is Human”.

Rigveda 10/130/6 says that a few rishis, many maneeshies and a lot of mothers and fathers were born in the 1st generation of humans, i.e. our forefathers. [Rishi Dayanand Saraswati, Arya samaj, Rig Ved Bhashya]